Cybersex itself was experienced by some cybersex-initiates as 'liberating'. It allowed participants to explore new behaviours in terms of verbal/sexual self-expression, and was particularly constructed as inhibition-freeing by some women (and men) whose social roles would 'normally' preclude them from uninhibited sex talk and/or the writing of erotica. The fact that the communication exchange is two-way (and the cybersex partner is fully involved in the development of the cybersex exchange) creates the potential for uncertainty and surprise and allows for the possibility of an ongoing relationship. We discussed whether sex was 'all in the mind', or whether cybersex only occurred with self-touching ... and decided that the mind was the primary centre for activity in both RL and cybersex, and particularly with the romantic experience of both. Part of the romance of cybersex lies in the use of words and writing style to identify, signal and woo potentially compatible partners. Further, there is the sense of almost unlimited scope-nothing is impossible in cyberspace.

   The cyber-romance is restricted only by the limits of expression and imagination, not by the corporeality of physical presence-however, cyber-presence is required. As (the submissive) sweet~fyre told Marian Palandri: 'I enjoy writing hot sex, filth, and love being the center of the action too. I have two VL lovers, Sticky K and Prince Nathaniel... It used to be just Sticky K but his RL was heavy, he couldn't give me enough time ... I was lonely . . . Since Prince Nathaniel came on the scene it's been much better'. Having noted the benefits of cyber-romance, cyber-relationships might be much more quickly extinguished than in RL. There was an unreferenced recollection that cyber-romances lasted an average of six weeks.

   One reason why cybersex might be particularly liberating for some participants is that it allows for the mutual exploration of 'kinky' fantasies with minimal risk of physical harm compared with an equivalent experience in RL (especially with a stranger). A female student suggested that cybersex protocols may be educational for some men in that the written element slows down the exchange and foregrounds the words and emotions as an important precursor to (and accompaniment of) cybersex. Further, the lack of physical presence of the other was seen to offer more self-awareness as part of the cybersex experience. That self-awareness-of what an individual wants and what an individual wants to give-was perceived as offering benefits in VL, and potential benefits in RL.

   As well as being a two-way exchange, cybersex offers an increasingly multi-sensory experience. Leaving aside the (rare and expensive) 'pleasure suit', webcam can communicate images of cybersexual partner(s) who have a particularly exhibitionist disposition. The involvement of the other in cybersex, and the mutual interchange of sweet-fyre's 'hot sex, filth', was seen to indicate a quintessential consensual experience. 'Non-consensual' cybersex was consequently a theoretically troublesome construct-about as logical as the notion of self-deception. At the same time, it was clearly possible for Netizens to experience unwanted cybersexual advances, and to suffer cybersexual harassment. Such problems could usefully be referred to a moderator, if there was one, since a persistent offender could be excluded from the online group.

   Compared with phone sex (and, to a lesser extent, porn and sexy movies), cybersex was inexpensive-there was no overriding financial implication beyond the wherewithal to log on. There was some suggestion, however, that maybe cybersex indicates a fear of 'real-to-real' intimacy-especially given that many RL relationships appear to last longer than cyber-relating. It was also felt that RL offered greater potential for intimacy across a wider range of self-expression, and that maybe RL intimacy was a necessary part of a continuing and deepening sexual Haison for most people. Technoculture couldn't be all things to all people, all the time.

   Cybersex protagonists were keen to suggest that RL sex might be limited by physical proximity and might be 'quicker' than cybersex with less 'conversation' and exchange of thoughts and ideas. In both manifestations of sexuality, however, there was the potential for an ongoing relationship. Those who owned up to being experienced, cybersexually, claimed that individuals were vulnerable in both domains, and that the degree of vulnerability was related to the amount of individual engagement with the other, and with the sexual experience, rather than to the medium of expression (VL/RL). For this reason, it was valid to debate (hotly) the moral dimension of infidelity across partners and across media (VL/RL). Could you be unfaithful to an RL partner with aVL partner? Should you not go out with RL people when involved in a cyber-romance? These moral questions were seen to pivot upon the understandings between the parties-in essence, upon whether the VL/RL activities were open and above board.

   One area in which cybersex does not match up to RL is in relationship to law and to biological procreation. (Although some cyber-partnerships involve cyber-pregnancies and cyber-kids.) No government k willing to offer nationality and residency status to a cyber-partner as a result of a cyber-relationship alone.